I Am Just Crawling Into A Hole And Hiding.

[glc]

hey, I'm sure that if everybody had one, it would be a safer and happier place!

[Homicidalheathen]

Maybe not but I wouldn't have any trouble getting the grill lit up again

[sinmantyx]

Godwin can kiss my ass. Truth is Truth.. deal with it. BTW.. not all profs are anti gun.. infact there are Profs on the boob tube right now asking for the right to carry a gun on campus.

BTW, you dont like my posts... ignore me. if you find me annoying, ignore me... I'll post what I feel like posting. It's on topic, don't like the topic.. deal with it. I refuse to edit my posts to fit your narrow view of how things should be.

You're doing it again. Did *I* EVER say that ALL profs are anti-gun? I said that I would choose not to carry a gun. Does that make me "anti-gun"? Considering that I am pleased that we have armed security, I wouldn't go that far. I didn't even make any comment about whether or not those with concealed weapons permits should be able to carry a gun on campus.

Gun control laws = banning gun, taking them away from law abiding citizens = Hitler?

Who here is breaking with reality?

You know what a "straw man" is? Because that is what you are doing and what many of the gun control advocates are also doing: mischaracterizing a moderate stance into some sort of zealot-land of fascist-gun-banning tactics vs. free guns for all!!! That's not the conversation we're having. If it was, it would be completely irrelevent.

Unless, of course, you see no reason for any gun control what-so-ever. Is that actually your opinion? I thought I'd ask before assuming.

I do agree with you on one major point. If you want to kill a bunch of people: there are plenty of ways: especially on an engineering campus. Gun control is not going to somehow magically stop incidents such as this one.

(I give up: thread sucessfully jacked)

[Rayne]

I'm just never allowed to go to Viriginia ... ever again. Simple as that.

[Steven]

gaf, you're really out of your league here. you know that there are long term continuous experiments in stricter gun control laws (hint: they're other english speaking nations, many of them) that are working compared to OUR system.

and if you wanted to go on a killing spree, you'd use a 30.06 or an assault rifle, if you could get one. don't play dumb.

just jumping in without reading the preceeding posts but....

its not just guns in this country that are the issue Love, its the fuckign wackos that are losing their shit and decidding to take everyone with them. I wonder how our wacko count compares to other english speakign nations?

and then also - this is a crowded place, a university, there are lots of firearms that would do nicely, including handguns with clips. all you'd really have to do is pay attention to the exits once mass rioting starts and pick them off there.

[Steven]

My point is... Guns are not the easyest/cheapest way to kill a lot of people. If someone want to kill a large numbe rof people... a gun is really a bad choice. Real thought will show you that there are many ways to kill and some are damn easy to get your hands on.

he's right.

home made explosives and or fumes from buring materials work best. And alot fo that stuff you can get at the 99 cent store.

[Steven]

try killing 33 people with an axe. I'm sure some one will stop you after one or two. fuck, you can kill someone with a fishing rod, but guns just do a particularly good job at it.

actually he'd get more than on eor two.

most people stand around and shit their pants in the clutch.

especially if there is blood and or gore involved.

[Steven]

Godwin's law: you lose. You are also straw-maning the living shit out of other people's views. It's annoying. Also, if people insist on making this a "gun control" thread you can start citing sources at any moment.

PS: I'm a prof. I'm NOT carrying a gun...try and make me. We have armed security on campus: I'm totally cool with that.

Syn.....just food for thought (respectfully submitted).

how many seconds will it take for somone to draw a bead on you and fire?

How quickly can security cover you - in addition to whomever else is in danger?

add this: is security carrying rounds in abundence, on their person, when trouble starts?

[Steven]

Sorry If I'm pissing people off here, it's just something I feel strongly about. I know how you guys seem to love your guns, and you've got the whole gun culture thing going on, but I just don't get the fascination. If you want a hobby, play an instrument, or make some art or something. Something constructive.

thank the queen for that one pal, it started with her and them damn redcoats.

[phee]

*Phee remembers a story he once told.... wavy lines indicating on oncomming flashback*

An Opinionated Short Story from Phee:

The Freedom to own Guns:

It was a lush summer evening in the medium sized town of Gunvillia, the country had just gotten rid of the regulations and restrictions on firearms that were previously in place from the nearly oppresive government. Everyone then went to their local Walmarts, Meijiers, Drug Stores, and fruit stands.... They gleefully purchase their handguns, assault rifles, and other forms of personal protection...

They go back to their homes feeling safe and secure, that they now have the confindence that another will not pull a gun on them for fear of being shot themselves, and they can now protect their families and property with confidence, and if the government gets too pushy, they can simply take their firearms and make it right... The town of Gunvilla, and the rest of the country is at peace.

A half an hour later, Bob Bobertsons car breaks down in Gunvilla in a pleasant looking nieghborhood... He then roles his eyes at his own stupidity for not charging up his cellphone... He looks at his Mac 10 thinking I have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive, he breaths a sigh of peaceful and wonderful relief as he puts it in his pocket, and gets out of his car to see if the person who lives in the house that his car stalled out in front of, would be kind enough to make a phone call on his behalf...

Inside the said house, John Johnson has just had a minor fight with his girlfriend and decides to have a couple of beers in his home, after all it is his right to do so in his own home after all. He looks with pride at his Glock 9 thiniking to himself: I am glad I have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive... and feels calm and at peace. He sees on the news that a disturbed serial rapest is on the loose, and thinks again: have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive.

John Johnson then looks out his window and sees a black man (Bob Bobertson) approaching his house, and he sees the handle of a weapon in this mans pocket... "The rapest in the area was black" he thinks "And my god in this twilight with a couple of beers, that person comming up my walkway sure looks like the bastard, but I need to be sure" John Johnson pulls his weapon "just in case" and opens his door...

Bob Bobertson sees the door fling open and the man standing their with his gun drawn says: "Are you that black rapest? ANSWER ME!!!" Bob Bobertson says "FUCK" and draws his weapon and looks for cover... Both men share in the thought: I am glad that I have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive.

Shots are fired from both parties and Bob Bobertson Is wounded (but for the sake of the story) not killed... John Johnson after realizing the situation, seeing that this man is nopt the rapest, then takes Bob Bobertson to the hospital, feeling guilty, but Bob Bobertson is strangely understanding and say in unison: "I am glad that I have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive"

All returns to the peace of before...

Except accross the street where in the gun battle they seemed to no see young Mary Marison age five, playing hopsctotch... The failed to see 2 of John Johnsons rounds and 1 of Bob Bobertsons rounds enter her chest killing her... But Marys father did see this, and thinks to himself: "wait a second, I have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive, and OMG this can't happen!!!"

He then opens fire with his AK47 on Bob Bobertson and John Johnson upon the return from the hospital... killing them both... "Now that is over with" he thinks to himself, and begins the process of mourning his daughter... And all was peaceful again.

Accept on the way to the hospital Bob Bobertson had called his wife on John Johnsons cell phone, and explained to her the situation, and that everything was OK... and now that Bob Bobertson was dead over this stupid misunderstanding, Mrs. Bobertson thinks to herself: "But I have the freedom to protect myself, my property and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive, right?" She then calles up her relatives and tells them to grab their Uzi's and get over to her place for some punishment and justice"

Mrs. Robertson and family then storms the Marison house killing Mr. and Mrs. Marison shortly after they got back from the funeral... Everything was then back to normal and it's peaceful self...

Accept the Marisons wern't to happy about what happened to their family and they think to themselves: "We have the freedom to protect myself my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive, and that was simply too harsh" One of the Marisons then says: "You know we could call the police or something" They stop and think this is a good idea...

The police show up at the Bobertsons door to ask a few questions... Now Billy Bobertson has been oppressed by a couple of bad cops before, and now that he has M60 he thinks: "I have the freedom to protect myself, my property and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive." The cops show up and one of them reaches into his pocket for a peace of gum and Billy Bobertson "Lights him up"... a gun battle ensues in the nieghborhood... The people all thinking: " Gosh it is a good thing Ihave the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive"

Carl Carlson is lying in the street bleeding and thinks "I am a passivist. I don't believe in guns... how the fuck did this bull shit happen?... it kind of reminds me of World War One with the alliance system in Europe and how that war started, when the Duke..." He is cut short by a car running over him driven by another passivist trying to get the Fuck out of the area.

Rich Richardson then notices that a lot of his employees that live in that area are being killed in the conflict and sends his heavily armed task force in to "keep the peace" so that he can stop with the workmans comp bullshit and the huge cost of hireing new people thinking: " I have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive, and damn this is hurting my business/property."

A few days, deaths, and bombs later in Foriegna, Pierre Frenchie is listening to the story on the news and accindently cuts off Frank Foriegnburg while driving... they both reach for their guns... realize they don't have any, share a laugh and a cophee and continue on to work.

In the not so nearby country of Fuckthewestastan, the current dictator is very happy that we are doing gods work for him and rapes a peasant.

A few years later, people are in their privat communes, half starving and with many dead in their family in a more or less civil war for the last few years, all heavily armed thinking: "I have the freedom to protect myself, my property, and family from others who wish to do me harm and I can help overthrow the government if they get too oppressive... and I am glad this whole I am armed you are armed so we leave each other the fuck alone thing worked out so well for us... who needs history? who needs to understand the flawed and violent nature of the human race? we have our freedom, and the government didn't interfere with our 'private' lives."

A native american living in Canada thinks: "figures"

And they all lived happily ever after...

Thanks for reading...

I know that this is an extreme exageration, and that I am over simplifying but I think the point is clear. And I also know that most people have already made up their minds and this won't change that.

I hope Critter will be proud of it's length

And even all my misspelled words are still there...

[Scales]

Too many people in positions of power want to seek justification instead of solution to the point where nothing changes. History has shown that taking guns away has created governments that lean toward fascism. Now other countries may disprove this in the present, but they aren't the prideful United States, which might aswell have "War Corporatism" written on the flag. Our government's ambition towards warfare most likely perpetuates our need for guns. Crazy people going on shooting sprees in educational systems is just as much a community problem. Personally as horrible as this is I don't let myself feel victimized by it's occurrence, even though I perceive this sort of thing as getting worse as time goes on.

[sinmantyx]

Syn.....just food for thought (respectfully submitted).

how many seconds will it take for somone to draw a bead on you and fire?

How quickly can security cover you - in addition to whomever else is in danger?

add this: is security carrying rounds in abundence, on their person, when trouble starts?

I never said that armed security was sufficient in every situation. Obviously they are not. They cannot be everywhere at once or react immediately. I just said that I didn't mind the fact that they carried guns.

How many seconds would it take for someone to shoot me: faster than I could draw my gun, hit the safety, and fire back. There are reasons that I, personally, would not carry a gun.

1) It would be uncomfortable to carry (anything small enough to be comfortable would be pretty worthless)

2) The chances of a situation presenting itself where using it would be reasonable is extremely unlikely

3) If I encountered someone who wished to assault me, steal from me, or simply was extremely angry (there are plenty of instances where faculty have been threatened by students in the heat of anger about grades, policies, etc) --- the lethal weapon I am carrying could be taken from me by that person and make a bad situation a hell of a lot worse. (Even police officers who go through rigorous training have high instances of being shot with their own weapons.)

4) Even if a situation presented itself where aiming the gun at someone was reasonable (and firing the gun at someone a justifiable action); I would be reluctant to do so

5) The possibility of a gun related accident or friendly fire incident seems much more likely than the lightening on a clear day chance that I would save the day by killing/injuring someone

I am well aware that in this recent incident, if students/faculty were allowed to carry weapons on campus it may have very well changed the situation for the better. However, as I said before, this is not an incident that should be used to make policy or general statements. This does NOT (in any stretch of the imagination) happen every day on college campuses in the United States.

What happens ALL THE TIME are students who become angry and threaten teachers or students because of stress and failure. One of my fellow grad students at NIU was given a death threat by a someone who didn't like the grade she gave him. He was extremely angry and lashed out. Those are the types of stories that faculty hear about all the time. Adding a gun to those "moments of passion" = bad. If individuals coming onto campus (in a premeditated fashion) and shooting up the place happened as often --- 1) I probably wouldn't be in this line of work and 2) I might rethink carrying a weapon (however, I would most likely carry something other than a gun).

Someone mentioned armed security on planes...with GUNS? It makes sense to have security on planes (especially large planes) but shooting a projectile weapon in pressurized cabin is really insane. Why do people think that guns are the only type of weapon?! Don't any of you gun buffs watch "Future Weapons"? Seriously. Wow. Shooting a gun on a plane. Why don't I just use a taser while standing in a puddle of salt-water?

Anyway! One thing that hasn't been mentioned: that I think most of us can agree on. Why make a bunch of new laws when the ones on the books are generally adequate. It's enforcement and ease of enforcement of existing laws that could do some good, I think.

Also, it doesn't make sense to pretend guns don't exist. I'm a big advocate of any young person having gun safety/training. This is a gun. This is the proper way to use a gun. This is why a weapon should be respected. This is what this weapon can do. Too many people get their gun-education from television and movies; and have bizarre unrealistic ideas of what a weapon is...romanticized and ridiculous notions.

It shouldn't be surprising that bullets fired at an intended target go right through a car door and kill a baby. People buy a gun (with no clue) in order to "protect their family" and put it in a place easy to access "just in case" and the kids in the house end up accidentally shooting each other....showing it off to friends cause "it's so cool". Hunters are shot by drunken hunters...etc, so forth. That's also news I listen to.

One of the only times that I was seriously scared in Flint -- was playing the "firework or firearm" game on New Year's Eve -- Was that a firework? No, I think that was some idiot shooting in the air randomly hailing stray bullets all over the city.

Just like strict gun control doesn't magically make you safe: neither does carrying a gun.

I'm not anti-gun: I'm anti-using-guns-stupid and I'm not under the delusion that having a gun on my person or in my home is going to necessarily make me safer. As I mentioned earlier: If I'm worried about my health: I'll drive the speed limit, make sure I'm not too tired when I drive at night, and make sure I walk around a bit every 2 hours while I'm working at the computer to avoid blood clots....maybe after the baby is delivered, I'll get back into martial arts (not to protect myself from would-be attackers -- that's just another sense of false security) to get in better physical shape to lessen my chances of diabetes and heart disease.

[sinmantyx]

*Phee remembers a story he once told.... wavy lines indicating on oncomming flashback*

And even all my misspelled words are still there...

At least you admit it's far fetched...

How about:

My roommate hears someone at the door. It sounds like the person is trying to break in. From the noise, it is obvious that the person has opened the screen door and is attempting to turn the knob on the main door.

My roommate gets his WWII 306 and creeps down the stairway and stops in the hallway --- waiting to see if the person is successful in getting into the house.

The person leaves.

My roommate is relieved. He writes up the story on his LJ and I read it at work. I'm a bit concerned.

Later that day, my husband comes home.

When I come home, my husband tells me that we just got the new AAA Tour Michigan Book.

I ask, "Was it, by any chance, between the screen door and the main door at the side of the house?"

He seems confused...."Um....yeah....why?"

I laugh hysterically, explain the situation to my husband and then respond to my roommate's lj post, implying that he almost shot the UPS guy (which is an exaggeration since the gun wasn't even loaded and he never actually made contact with the UPS guy--- but a humorous way of explaining it considering nobody was hurt or in extreme danger).

"Why didn't the UPS guy knock?" my roommate asks.

"The UPS guy, unlike all our friends, doesn't know that the doorbell doesn't work," I respond.

"oh"

I continue, "...and, by the way, though I appreciate that you care enough about our stuff to want to stay and fight over it. If this happens again, you get the fuck out of the house and call the cops from the neighbor's place or on your cell phone. Our shit can be replaced...I'm mean, it's even insured...but you can't be replaced."

--Well, not as interesting as your story--but this one is true.

[Steven]

I never said that armed security was sufficient in every situation. Obviously they are not. They cannot be everywhere at once or react immediately. I just said that I didn't mind the fact that they carried guns.

How many seconds would it take for someone to shoot me: faster than I could draw my gun, hit the safety, and fire back. There are reasons that I, personally, would not carry a gun.

1) It would be uncomfortable to carry (anything small enough to be comfortable would be pretty worthless)

2) The chances of a situation presenting itself where using it would be reasonable is extremely unlikely

3) If I encountered someone who wished to assault me, steal from me, or simply was extremely angry (there are plenty of instances where faculty have been threatened by students in the heat of anger about grades, policies, etc) --- the lethal weapon I am carrying could be taken from me by that person and make a bad situation a hell of a lot worse. (Even police officers who go through rigorous training have high instances of being shot with their own weapons.)

4) Even if a situation presented itself where aiming the gun at someone was reasonable (and firing the gun at someone a justifiable action); I would be reluctant to do so

5) The possibility of a gun related accident or friendly fire incident seems much more likely than the lightening on a clear day chance that I would save the day by killing/injuring someone

I am well aware that in this recent incident, if students/faculty were allowed to carry weapons on campus it may have very well changed the situation for the better. However, as I said before, this is not an incident that should be used to make policy or general statements. This does NOT (in any stretch of the imagination) happen every day on college campuses in the United States.

What happens ALL THE TIME are students who become angry and threaten teachers or students because of stress and failure. One of my fellow grad students at NIU was given a death threat by a someone who didn't like the grade she gave him. He was extremely angry and lashed out. Those are the types of stories that faculty hear about all the time. Adding a gun to those "moments of passion" = bad. If individuals coming onto campus (in a premeditated fashion) and shooting up the place happened as often --- 1) I probably wouldn't be in this line of work and 2) I might rethink carrying a weapon (however, I would most likely carry something other than a gun).

Someone mentioned armed security on planes...with GUNS? It makes sense to have security on planes (especially large planes) but shooting a projectile weapon in pressurized cabin is really insane. Why do people think that guns are the only type of weapon?! Don't any of you gun buffs watch "Future Weapons"? Seriously. Wow. Shooting a gun on a plane. Why don't I just use a taser while standing in a puddle of salt-water?

Anyway! One thing that hasn't been mentioned: that I think most of us can agree on. Why make a bunch of new laws when the ones on the books are generally adequate. It's enforcement and ease of enforcement of existing laws that could do some good, I think.

Also, it doesn't make sense to pretend guns don't exist. I'm a big advocate of any young person having gun safety/training. This is a gun. This is the proper way to use a gun. This is why a weapon should be respected. This is what this weapon can do. Too many people get their gun-education from television and movies; and have bizarre unrealistic ideas of what a weapon is...romanticized and ridiculous notions.

It shouldn't be surprising that bullets fired at an intended target go right through a car door and kill a baby. People buy a gun (with no clue) in order to "protect their family" and put it in a place easy to access "just in case" and the kids in the house end up accidentally shooting each other....showing it off to friends cause "it's so cool". Hunters are shot by drunken hunters...etc, so forth. That's also news I listen to.

One of the only times that I was seriously scared in Flint -- was playing the "firework or firearm" game on New Year's Eve -- Was that a firework? No, I think that was some idiot shooting in the air randomly hailing stray bullets all over the city.

Just like strict gun control doesn't magically make you safe: neither does carrying a gun.

I'm not anti-gun: I'm anti-using-guns-stupid and I'm not under the delusion that having a gun on my person or in my home is going to necessarily make me safer. As I mentioned earlier: If I'm worried about my health: I'll drive the speed limit, make sure I'm not too tired when I drive at night, and make sure I walk around a bit every 2 hours while I'm working at the computer to avoid blood clots....maybe after the baby is delivered, I'll get back into martial arts (not to protect myself from would-be attackers -- that's just another sense of false security) to get in better physical shape to lessen my chances of diabetes and heart disease.

good answers.

only didint we just have a shooting at this same campus within the last year?

and arent campus shootings in general, becoming dangerously close to a new sort of american crime trend?

I agree with you that not everybody should carry a gun.

however (and I know this is not your argument) I do beleive citizens that pass the prerequisites should be allowed to do so in certain situations. I also understand thats much easier said than done. When there is training involved, with the right type of personality or psyche, Yes - you can quickly defend yourself or disarm a bad situation. thats what soldiers, cops, and private security do. I do understand yrou personal reluctance to fire a weapon in this type of situation. I do not think I'd be as reluctant, but thats me, and I've carried and have been trained for firearms use as both a soldier and a K9 civilian. I admit however, that I've seen people in both scenarios that should not be allowed to carry du to their inability to be clearheaded in times of high stress. Its not an easy situation to unfold and correct. I am leery (very) however - of mandates takign away my right to own a firearm. I do not even presently own a firearm (I used to own several) but I beleive in my right to do so as an American Citizen. And I do beleive that having a firearm in the home, properly contained and controlled, can indeed make your home a safer place. I dont need a cannon thats going to peirce my exterior walls and kill a neighbor. A small caliber weapon that allows me to make my way to a shotgun would do nicely, and I know I can hit a moving target in a cramped or dark environment.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

There are 100+ (yes really) deaths a day , every day in SE Michigan. Theres just something sensational about particular "ways" to die that makes the news. They are all tragic, but really lacking in perspective. We , as a population are clueless.

After every one of these stories the cry for "take more of our civil liberties away please!!" is raised. Thats the real tragedy.

[glc]

again with the civil liberties. I live in a place with strict gun control laws, and I don't feel like i'm under the clutches of an oppressive government, or that I have any less freedom than anybody else. In fact, I feel safer, because I know it's a hell of a lot more difficult for people to get them

[BrassFusion]

but YOUR government leans toward facism, right??

actually i could deal with the aus. system regarding gun control. there are a few other issues i'd for sure take up with your gov, but that's not one of them.

[glc]

Ha, our government has it's head so far up your governments ass, it doesn't know which way to lean!!

[BrassFusion]

Ew.

[n0Mad]

1) It would be uncomfortable to carry (anything small enough to be comfortable would be pretty worthless)

Not true. I can give you a whole list right now of high capacity .45ACP auto pistols that you'd forget you were even wearing they're so comfortable. As far as effective? They'll drop a charging lion.

Someone mentioned armed security on planes...with GUNS? It makes sense to have security on planes (especially large planes) but shooting a projectile weapon in pressurized cabin is really insane. Why do people think that guns are the only type of weapon?! Don't any of you gun buffs watch "Future Weapons"? Seriously. Wow. Shooting a gun on a plane. Why don't I just use a taser while standing in a puddle of salt-water?

Ever hear of frangibles? Even a JHP round won't breech the hull.

[sinmantyx]

Not true. I can give you a whole list right now of high capacity .45ACP auto pistols that you'd forget you were even wearing they're so comfortable. As far as effective? They'll drop a charging lion.

Ever hear of frangibles? Even a JHP round won't breech the hull.

I don't even wear a watch because I find them uncomfortable. I'm a special case in anti-accessories. I know you can find some sort of one-shot weapon that looks like a lipstick, etc. I haven't heard of the .45ACP auto pistol so I don't know if I would go for it or not; but for all of the other reasons, I'm just not in the market for a small pistol right now. (I'm trying to convince my dad to give me a .22 rifle for target shooting, but that's a completely different story.)

Frangibles? Sounds like a reasonable idea. I certainly wouldn't be happy if someone were carrying a conventional weapon/round on a plane and I'm certainly not comfortable with a JHP. Even if it might not go *through* -- weakening the hull or seal on a window would not be a good thing: not to mention ricochets. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir there.

[sinmantyx]

good answers.

only didint we just have a shooting at this same campus within the last year?

and arent campus shootings in general, becoming dangerously close to a new sort of american crime trend?

I agree with you that not everybody should carry a gun.

however (and I know this is not your argument) I do beleive citizens that pass the prerequisites should be allowed to do so in certain situations. I also understand thats much easier said than done. When there is training involved, with the right type of personality or psyche, Yes - you can quickly defend yourself or disarm a bad situation. thats what soldiers, cops, and private security do. I do understand yrou personal reluctance to fire a weapon in this type of situation. I do not think I'd be as reluctant, but thats me, and I've carried and have been trained for firearms use as both a soldier and a K9 civilian. I admit however, that I've seen people in both scenarios that should not be allowed to carry du to their inability to be clearheaded in times of high stress. Its not an easy situation to unfold and correct. I am leery (very) however - of mandates takign away my right to own a firearm. I do not even presently own a firearm (I used to own several) but I beleive in my right to do so as an American Citizen. And I do beleive that having a firearm in the home, properly contained and controlled, can indeed make your home a safer place. I dont need a cannon thats going to peirce my exterior walls and kill a neighbor. A small caliber weapon that allows me to make my way to a shotgun would do nicely, and I know I can hit a moving target in a cramped or dark environment.

We agree on a great many things. I would not support laws that disallow someone with training and the "right personality" to carry/own most types of guns. I had a friend who had a collectors' license and had a small arsenal. I would be pretty annoyed if anyone decided to take his collection away from him. On the other hand, I don't want any crazy neighbor being able to out-gun the authorities all on their own with a short trip to the pawn shop or an internet site.

I do see it like having a drivers' license, however. If you have the training and pass a test --- you can operate certain "machinery". If, at some point, you prove that you are unable to safely operate that machinery, your "right" to operate it is taken away from you.

If someone, like yourself, who has had extensive training, were carrying a gun on campus --- that would not bother me. That's why I don't mind (and am pretty happy) that our security on campus is armed (which is not the case on some campuses). Because they have their uniform and credentials, I immediately know that they have been trained on the use of the weapon they carry. (...at least I certainly want to believe that!) I don't want any tom-dick-and-harry to be carrying guns on campus because I can't be assured that they have adequate training to make that gun an asset in a dangerous situation and not a liability.

[n0Mad]

An auto pistol is really a semi-automatic pistol and it's probably what you're thinking of when you hear the word "pistol". Auto pistols and revolvers are the two most popular types of handguns. ACP stands for "automatic colt pistol" and is the most popular type of forty-five calibre ammunition. Which, that's what .45 means, forty-five calibre. That's the diameter of the bullet in inches. A .38 is equivilant to a 9mm basically. The do make .50 rounds and other unusual large bore calibres but .45 is pretty standard. The most popular .45ACP auto pistol is the classic 1911 style but many of those can be uncomfortable for concealed carry. The Sprinfield XD has just come out in a compact model that's super light weight and with a good holster you won't even know it's there. Well, in theory. I too don't wear a wristwatch or any jewlery as I find it all uncomfortable as well. The only exception will be a wedding ring when I get married.

And I'm even part of the choir when it comes to ricochets and missed shots. In the heat of combat a shooter develops tunnel vision and doesn't notice anything beyond or around his target. Many innocents have been shot because of this. This is one reason why all law enforcement departments require their officers to use hollow point ammunition (JHP). It expands inside the target slowing it down preventing penetration out the back and hitting somebody or something else. Many JHPs won't even go through drywall too but sure will sink into flesh.

Anyway, that's my lecture for the day. I'm all for gun control laws as long as they don't restrict responsible gun ownership. I don't agree entirely with my post that more guns are the answer but I certainly don't agree that less are.

[BrassFusion]

Jacketed hollow points aren't "safer" than penetrating... considering they do more damage to whatever fleshy thing they hit. But they sure as hell wouldn't breach an airplane hull.

[sinmantyx]

And I'm even part of the choir when it comes to ricochets and missed shots. In the heat of combat a shooter develops tunnel vision and doesn't notice anything beyond or around his target. Many innocents have been shot because of this. This is one reason why all law enforcement departments require their officers to use hollow point ammunition (JHP). It expands inside the target slowing it down preventing penetration out the back and hitting somebody or something else. Many JHPs won't even go through drywall too but sure will sink into flesh.

OH--- "Jacketed Hollow Point" --- oops. My hubby thought it may have stood for "Jacketed High Power" --- BAD hubby getting his information from game books.

A round that will stop a person but not go through dry-wall sounds pretty sweet. Do they have some of the same problems (well if you are the one wearing the body armor) with body armor as frangibles? (That seems so counter-intuitive.)

Anyway, now we are REALLY getting off topic.

I just want to work my way up from a .22 to something that will stop a wild pig. Now THAT is not thinking of my own safety! However, coming back from the North victorious with bacon and ham for the rest of the year sounds pretty sweet. If I were a bit more ambitious however, I would look into bow hunting.

That's the context that I generally think of guns in; not an urban environment against other human beings.

Even when there was a armed drug-ring angry at me for running them out of my apartment complex (I'm not kidding -- this was back in Minnesota -- the neighborhood I live in here in Flint, ironically, is much much safer), it never even occurred to me to buy a gun for my husband and my protection. It's just out of my context, I suppose. As I mentioned earlier: simple personal discomfort.